Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Several readers have submitted news that as expected, Ecuador is formally accepting Julian Assange's request for political asylum. paulmac84 writes "The Guardian are live blogging the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister's announcement that Ecuador is to grant asylum to Julian Assange. In the announcement Minister Patino said, 'We can state that there is a risk that he will be persecuted politically... We trust the UK will offer the necessary guarantees so that both governments can act adequately and properly respect international rights and the right of asylum. We also trust the excellent relationship the two countries have will continue.' The Guardian also carries a translated copy of the letter the UK sent to Ecuador regarding the threat to 'storm' the Ecuadorian embassy."Also at Reuters.

The UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force, violating the Vienna Conventions. Equador has shown remarkable courage, doing something many in the international community doubted it could: It has stood up to tyranny. It has stated it will now bow under the threat of terrorism. It does not negotiate with terrorists.

The UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force, violating the Vienna Conventions.

1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).

2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange

You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.

So yes, they are saying as openly as diplomatic-speak goes, that they are prepared to enter Ecuador embassy even by force and take Assange.

Stripping the embassy privileges would mean they could go in and fetch him. This would be in accordance with conventions, but would cause serious diplomatic fallout.

The next option is to claim that the embassy is already in violation of the conventions, since it harbors criminals. You just can't do that forever and still follow the conventions. What the UK would do here is then to throw out an ambassador or like the above, strip the diplomatic privileges alltogether from the embassy. This too would cause serious diplomatic fallout.

The simplest option is to simply wait until he leaves the embassy, and just stop the car. The Vienna convention is quite clear on the fact that you can stop/search a diplomatic vehicle if there is a suspected crime. So the whole "sneak assange out to the airport in an embassy car" does not seem like a watertight plan. Even simpler, you could just block any way a car could leave the embassy, forcing people to walk from the embassy thereby letting him be arrested without having to search a car. In any case, I bet he will be extradited to sweden sooner or later. I'm also quite sure that once there, he will be questioned and released quickly (so quickly that the swedish authorities can claim not to know his whereabouts when the US asks, thereby avoiding a diplomatic problem between sweden and the US). There was a political scandal with the CIA smuggling suspected terrorists from Sweden to an egyptian CIA run prison where they were tortured, and no politician in Sweden will want to be involved in anything related to extradictions and the US again. At this point it is merely a question of prestige for the swedish legal authorities.

1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).

That would be the last story [slashdot.org] slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story [bbc.co.uk] mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."

2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.

It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law. That's the very definition of a treaty. The US has stated it has withdrawn from the Vienna convention, which is why it considers itself able to commit forced extradition of other countries citizens without any need to explain or justify itself. It has taken the diplomatic position of "We have more guns. Go ahead and try and stop us, but some piece of paper means nothing to us."

Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.

Yes, well, I see you have your life and liberty. I can't take away your liberty, so I'll just threaten to take your life -- indirectly and politely. It's perfectly legitimate because although it ends the exact same way, I can now say I never threatened to take away your liberty... your dead corpse will still have it. My internet logic is unbeatable!

Legitimacy isn't defined as what you can get away with; It's sticking to what you said before. And the UK signed the treaty, and the treaty is very explicit about this, in no uncertain terms, beyond any internet-troll logic: Once asylum is granted, the other country can't do anything to that person. Not while they're at the embassy. Not while they're in a vehicle leaving the embassy under the embassies protection. Not while they're at the airport getting out of the car. Not once they're in the air. Not anything. Anywhere. At anytime. For any reason. Period. End. Of. Discussion.

To quote directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [un.org], source from the website of the organization responsible for its creation and oversight, the UN, Article 22, Item 1: The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission, as wll as Article 29, The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest
or detention.

You'll note it says person of a diplomatic agent; which refers to anyone under the protection of that embassy. It does not require approval of the host country, and does not restrict in any way that diplomatic envoy's right to designate any person as being under their protection, at any time, for any reason.

A “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;

Assange isn't a diplomat and if Equador tried to make him one Britain can just refuse to accept him

Article 9

1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify thesending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission ispersona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any suchcase, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functionswith the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory ofthe receiving State.52. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations underparagraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as amember of the mission.

Either way, Assange is at best going to be stuck in the embassy forever, at worst will need to go to sweden.

A âoediplomatic agentâ is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;

person of a diplomatic agent. Big difference. That's anyone the diplomatic staff says is under their protection. One use for this is couriers. Let's say a local courier service is contracted to deliver, say, a new passport for one of its citizens that had one lost or stolen. Such a person can be designated ad hoc and without the approval of the host country, and gains the protections of the Vienna Convention while the package is delivered. The country's police can't legally detain or arrest the courier. Same with any other diplomatic package. Without this ability, embassies couldn't conduct routine business in the host country.

Article 9 states that the host country does have the right to expel a diplomatic envoy, or any member thereof, but they have the right to vacate "within a reasonable period of time" and cannot be arrested or detained in so doing. Article 9 is basically a leasing agreement: it can be revoked, but that doesn't mean the landlord gets to keep the people or property that are part of the diplomatic envoy.

If your position was tenable, then the moment war broke out, or during war, or during any conflict whatsoever, no embassies could be left in the other country because of the risk of violence or attack by that country... which makes the entire point of an embassy go away: A way of maintaining diplomatic relations. There's plenty of history of embassies being attacked and bombed by the host country... and it's always been condemned internationally as a violation of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations -- and the countries that do that tend to not have very many embassies or diplomatic relations with other countries after that. Countries that have broken the Convention aren't trusted, and have to resort to military force to address any of the problems that would have otherwise been resolved diplomatically.

The Conventions benefit everyone -- it allows things to be resolved peacefully. When you violate the treaty, or (in the case of the US) withdraw from it, you are sending a clear signal to the international community that you are a militant state who prefers to solve all of its problems with violence. I hope Britain has the cash to support a much larger standing army than it does now... and I do wonder how they'll avoid the problems of resorting to military force all the time -- Another country that likes to do this, the United States, is bankrupting itself and all measures of quality of life for its citizens are falling because of its lack of restraint in diplomatic matters. Will Britain's citizens tolerate the destruction of its middle class as complicitly as the US has? If you're a UK citizen who supports this unilateral action, you should open your wallet right now and ask yourself if you can do with less. It's your choice, but take it from a US citizen -- it costs more than you think.

Reminds me of that little Cuban boy who was "NOT" seized from his family at gun point by SWAT police...until the photo was released that showed just that.

His family? You mean the deceased mother's 2nd and 3rd relatives and a bunch of right-wing Cuban-American celebrities and politicians? His family was his father (his living and breathing father) to whom the swat team delivered the boy.

His family was his father, who was asking Elian Gonzales (the boy) to be returned to his care. His mother and husband at the time took him out of Cuba in a raft in complete violation of the father's shared custody rights. His family was not the people who held Elian Gonzales (the boy in question) refusing to deliver him to his father just because he didn't want to leave Cuba. It was all political, a disgraceful spectacle that we in Miami had to endure at the hand of those nutjobs.

The swat team had to intervene because the people holding Elian were treating to retaliate with violence. Get your facts straight buddy.

Let me guess, you don't like my use of the word Terrorist with regard to your favorite country, because if the UK extradites to Sweden, Sweden extradites to the US, and of course the US would never ask their close ally, the UK, to commit an act of terrorism, since they're so big on the whole War On Terrorism.

Except that's exactly what this is. The very definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes", and that's exactly what the UK has done when it threatened to 'storm the embassy' in order to gain political advantage.

Stop modding me down for saying what is literally and precisely what has happened. You might not like the verbiage, but it's the plain facts of the case -- it was a terroristic threat, and Equador courageously said "No." And that's remarkable precisely because it wasn't a threat made by some backwater country who's primary natural resource is dirt, and most of their citizens live in grass huts. This was made by a country with nuclear weapons, a standing force of hundreds of thousands, and could easily wipe Equador off the face of the Earth. They said "No," to that. They're risking everything to stand up for their principles.

They deserve to be commended, and I refuse to be silenced for standing up and applauding their resistance to bow to terroristic threats. Now go ahead, mod me to oblivion. And bravo Equador.

Actually, when the UN went to officially define "terrorism", they had to change the wording because of this exact problem. It now officially states that it's "the use of violence and threats by non-state actors to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes".

Got that? It's officially not terrorism if a government does exactly the same things as, say, Hamas does.

It crops up several times in his work but I suspect you're thinking of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

“Under what circumstance is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?”

“That’s a trick question.”

“It is the key question, a radical question that strikes at the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by all consequences knows where he stands–and what he will die for

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blameas blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside humans beings singly and nowhere else. But, being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect worldaware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.
(...)
We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations.

An FO spokeswoman, responding to the charges that the letter implies Britain intends to "storm" the embassy:

We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador. The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we remain determined to fulfil this obligation.

We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the above supposed to imply other than that Britain is making a serious threat to storm the embassy, if other options don't pan out?

I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat. It's right there, directly, there's no reading between the lines necessary: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."

I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat

People are like that; Once they take a position, they won't change it no matter the facts. Outside the sciences, I've never heard the phrase, "I hadn't considered that. I guess I was wrong." Right now, troops could be massing outside the embassy and these same people would be sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "I can't heeeeear you! Glory, glory, hallelujah!" Right up until the exact moment where what they are denying it's actually happening, and it can no longer be denied, they'll maintain their position. Then they'll change their tune; "It's justified," or, "It wasn't that bad." And finally, when the costs are tabulated, when everyone is tired of suffering, and they're miserable, and beyond even being angry and simply just want it to end... they might admit that it's all the other guy's fault for making them do it.

Yes, but the moral of the story is "mistakes destroy you, whether Assange or United States of America."

Generally we wonder "how can such an evil (corporation | government | politician | dictator) survive". They survive and do well only until they make a mistake. Being evil and survival has no connection. Luckily the evil are prone to make mistakes...so the world more or less works.

Assange made a mistake...he should have controlled his emotions. If he is innocent he might have fallen for a honey trap - a classic n00b mistake. If he is not innocent he made a bloody epic mistake.

The description of the alleged unlawful conduct includes sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent, which was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.

Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.

Do you honestly think that is what this whole thing is really about? Please. How many other allegations of "sure I wanted to sleep with him, but I didn't want to go all the way" are actually pursued through Interpol and extradition treaties each year? This is an empirical question.

I don't get why we are so quick to defend people we support otherwise when accused of criminal activities, and be so sure about their innocence. Even nerds can be douchebags.

You're right - we don't really know what happened. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. But the situation that led up to this point is complicated by the fact that the original prosecutor said that whatever Assange is alleged to have done wasn't a crime and he was free to leave Sweden. Also there is the issue of his alleged victim apparently no longer cooperating with the prosecution. There is the issue that she gave consent for him to continue after she asked and he confirmed that he wasn't using a condom. There is the whole issue of Interpol getting involved in what would usually be a non-Interpol matter. There is the issue that, once in Sweden, Assange could be extradited or otherwise renditioned into the hands of the U.S. government - the Swedish government has never denied that it would extradite Assange once he is back in Sweden - isn't that kind of weird? They could've ended this whole thing at any time by announcing that there would be no subsequent extradition to the US government. And yet they haven't done it.

- and if the consent is clearly dependent on condom, you don't have consent if you drop it.

Actually the issue of predicated consent in sexual activity is tricky and controversial - for example, in Israel it is considered rape if a woman thinks a man is Jewish and has sex with the man, but later finds out that he is a non-Jew (eg Sabbar Kashur [haaretz.com] and an unknown Israeli Air Force officer [haaretz.com]). A similar issue is prosecutions against HIV carriers who have unprotected sex but don't inform their sexual partner - is this actually rape? Most times the man will be charged with assault, but under some legal systems, yes, that would be considered rape. Is it rape if a man has sex with a woman, then she falls asleep, and he begins to have sex with her again? Technically it may be, as she is unconscious and has not affirmed her consent to sex again, and yet this happens often, even in relationships. Can a man rape his wife? Yes, obviously (though some legal systems would disagree). What about a man who has sex with his sleeping wife? Maybe.

That was only part of it, they also tried to get the UK to do the same and guarantee there was no potential for Assange to then be moved onto the US after Sweden too but they wouldn't.

They also made it clear Sweden can and has in the past interviewed people in foreign embassies and so Sweden does have the legal capability to do this.

They asked the US to also confirm whether there were any plans to try and get Assange over Wikileaks and the US wouldn't comment on that either.

It was all in all really interesting, because the statement basically drove a bulldozer through all the anti-Assange arguments that have been made here on Slashdot over the last year or so. All the stuff about how there were protections against Assange being moved on from Sweden to the US preventing that being possible, and all the crap about how Sweden supposedly doesn't allow in it's law for questioning via video link or in foreign countries hence the need for extradition turns out to be complete and utter crap.

Sweden didn't so much refuse, as explain why they can't. See just like most civilised countries Sweden has separate branches of government and extradition is handled by the Judicial one. While the Parliament has the last say in whether to extradite or not, giving a guarantee would violate the process.

No one in Sweden can offer any such "guarantees" about future extradiction. So the claim that they asked for guarantees and were refused is a cheap trick. It wasn't possible in the first place, and it is very possible that whoever asked already knew this.

Why the swedes continue to refuse to question assange in the UK is a mystery, and at this point that is the whole reason for this debacle. I think now they will go to the UK and question assange, after which the charges will be dropped (there isn't much of a case here). Once the charges are dropped I think everyone will see how ridiculous this whole thing really was. There was no case, everything that was needed was a simple questioning, but it somehow grew to ridiculous proportions.

We have no interest in him yet we're willing to make the totally unprecedented move that defies all international convention and precedence on the issue of embassies of revoking the Ecuadorian right to an embassy in our country?

You're right about one thing though, he's not our problem, but if he's not our problem, why are we going to the level of creating a diplomatic shit-storm that undoes every bit of good-will towards the UK from the international community that the likes of the royal wedding and the olympics have built up? Why are we willing to have our embassies shut down across the globe in retaliation by Ecuador and it's allies over someone who is not our problem? Why don't we just let Ecuador fly him to Ecuador and let Sweden/Ecuador sort it out through their own channels?

"The UK *MUST* extradite him or their laws mean nothing."

No we mustn't, historical precedence, and international convention says that political asylum takes precedence. How can we possibly preach to countries like Iran over things such as holding British sailors or US citizens prisoner if we do this sort of thing? At that point we've lost the moral high ground on this and many similar issues and no one should or will listen to us ever again on them.

"The laws on embassies mean we *CAN* legally revoke embassy status from the building itself."

That's what government claims. No one else seems to be convinced. Even if we can the cost of doing so is so massive there has to be a question of why, unless the government is seeing absolutely massive pressure/threats from elsewhere - i.e. the US government. The cost of doing this is so large relative to just letting Assange go to Ecuardor that it makes no sense without some other massive external factor (i.e. the US).

"Even the Vienna convention says we can just expel all the diplomats (so long as we don't harm them, etc.) "at any time, and for any reason"."

Yes, but the actual process of expelling a diplomat means you have to give them chance to pack up and go, and again, the cost of doing so is so mind bogglingly large for Britain's reputation that it doesn't make any sense to do this.

You're using the word "must" an awful lot where you should actually have typed "in my opinion should" because there is no real grounding for your claim of must.

"He deliberately and knowingly breached UK bail and will have to stand up in court for that at some point, no matter what."

Again, this is rather forceful language - "no matter what"? are you sure about that? are you sure that he wont manage to get to Ecuador and 30 years down the line when global geopolitics have changed and anything Assange has done wrong is forgotten the charges are dropped? It's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened across the globe many hundreds of times before in geopolitics.

Unless you can tell the future and know something the rest of us don't you should stick to stating things as opinion rather than demanding that what you say is the absolute truth and nothing else could possibly be the case, as that just makes you look like some zealous preacher, you may think it somehow adds strength to your argument, but it really doesn't, it just makes you look like an unobjective wingnut.

There is no law, statute or convention that protects him in there, under asylum or not (he has NOT been granted UK asylum, and cannot leave the building to be taken anywhere else that might recognise asylum for him).

Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states otherwise. In one sentence. No exceptions.

The UK *MUST* extradite him or their laws mean nothing.

No, the UK doesn't have to do anything. They're a sovereign power. And they're a sovereign power that signed a treaty stating that embassies hosted within their borders are involate, as is any person under their protection. And that treaty also stipulates that while they can expel the envoy, and all persons under their protection, they still can't touch them. Treaties supercede both UK law and EU law; that's the very definition of a treaty.

And for the record, there's no "temporary" dissolution of the embassy. Equador made their choice, they said the UK is wrong. If the UK resorts to military action, they're not setting up an embassy again -- they just wiped their ass with a treaty they signed, and it doesn't just affect Equador, but every treaty signee, who now has to consider that the UK has shown it will resort to violence to get what it wants out of the embassies. Many embassies will close in the UK, especially those without militaries of equal size. They'll be held as oath-breakers -- they won't be trusted for a long time with keeping their word on anything negotiated diplomatically. It might mean the UK can't do prisoner exchanges anymore with other countries, or get its own citizens out of a bind in those countries. The UK will have to resort to violence then to solve every one of its diplomatic problems, since their word is now worth nothing.

This is no longer about Assage; the UK has become militant, committed an act of terrorism, and is a threat to the national security of over a hundred countries. And if it doesn't back down, the damage will be severe, swift, and irreparable. As a citizen of the UK who supports this action, you need to be asking yourself how much extra taxation you're willing to bear for increased military expenditures, and how comfortable you are with the UKs more aggressive stance. And you might want to cancel any travel arrangements you have to... just about anywhere outside your country. If you run afoul of any laws while abroad, you might not have an embassy to help you sort it out. In fact, in some places, you may be arrested and held as a prisoner of war to be used as a bargaining chip to get their own citizens released from UK jails.

To say I am ashamed of the actions the the Government to even threaten the Ecuador embassy with stripping it of its diplomatic status.
For the alleged crimes Assange has committed this action is way way way over the top and obvious for all to see.

Then let me stand up and join you. I'm an American. I'm sorry my country has used back room deals to convince your country to make a terroristic threat because it was too cowardly to make. Everyone can plainly see at this point Sweden and the UK both caved to US demands to fabricate excuses and crimes to get this man back here -- all because he embarassed us politically, showing the world our true colors in the war on terror. I, too, am ashamed of my governments actions.

I hope you will not think any less of America's citizens because of the actions of the American government.

Now he's forced them into a legal corner where they can either BREACH the EU laws on extradition or not.

That doesn't explain them threatening to break into another embassy, violating their sovereignty and the Vienna convention in the process. EU laws don't pre-empt a country's treaty obligations, even the EU recognizes that. So if they had pursued all legal options and then said "Well, we have to extradite you" and stopped there, no problem. Except they didn't: When another country stepped in and said "We'll take over from here," relieving them of any obligations they might have had, they balked and then threatened to use military force.

They lost the moral high ground when they did that, and the legal one.

(Assange is NOT covered by any of the laws involving diplomats or embassies personally).

Except that he is; Article 19 of the Vienna convention, which states that anyone under the protection of the diplomatic envoy cannot be arrested. They'd be violating the treaty if they interfered with his free movement within the embassy, or his travel from it in order to transport him to Equador. It is an act of war to put boots on sovereign soil, and legally, that's what the embassy is. Their only legal recourse now is to expel Equador's diplomatic envoy -- but that doesn't get them Assange either. He's still protected under the Vienna convention, even if the UK decides to expel all of them. It's a package deal.

... to work out that there is definetely something fishy going on with the whole extradition story.

To begin with when both woman when to the police station to "report" Assange what they stated was NOT that they were raped but instead that he REFUSED to use a condom and they wanted to confirm with the police if they had the power to force him to take a STD test. Pure and simple! Now the police officer that took their statements called the prosecutor and, given the nature of the inquire, it already starts to sound a bit fishy. When the woman were told that they will issue an arrest warrant for Assange one of them REFUSED to continue with the statements and also even REFUSED to sign what had already been said. It sounds to me that it's pretty obvious that the public prosecutor that was called from that police station informed "someone" that they might had something on Assange.

There is so much to this it's hard to consolidate in a short coment but I would suggest watching this documentary on the subject:

I don't buy for a second that the woman were raped. And given all the evidence already presented in Sweden I don't think anyone does. The question has got to be related to something else, not even Kadafi had a RED Notice put on him, not even the Syrian president, it's an orange notice, but hey, he refused to use a condom, that's seems justified!

Assange doesn't need asylum, there is no threat of unfairness or risk to Assange.

And if you don't hand the bloody miscreant over, we'll rescind your embassy's status and send troops into your former embassy and seize Assange.(Kudos to Ecuador for doing the right thing and not conceding to a bully.)

Assange: not even charged, more than doubtful testimonies, a "crime" which does not even exist outside Sweden (sex without condom!). UK verdict: all kinds of threaten and proposal to violate Vienna Convention

It's not his opinion, he works in information warfare aka he's a paid troll. It's not about disagreeing with his position it's about the fact that we once again have an official propaganda office which is targeting American citizens.

If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious. Slashdot is probably more of a disinfo hobby for him than a job. What's unclear to me is if he honestly believes what he's saying. The hamfisted propaganda techniques* make him seem disingenuous, but it's entirely possible he believes this crap.

Also, you should have used the second person pronoun in your post. Always check who you are replying to.

*e.g. in the first post of this thread. Ecuador's free speech record is irrelevant to Assange escaping active persecution by Western governments. But if you can smear Ecuador, you smear Assange by association. This is not how honest people debate.

The disinformation lies not in the falsehood, but the lack of relevance.

Also, Ecuador's free speech record is highly relevant:

Nothing you say following this colon shows any sort of relevance of Ecuador's free speech record. The only thing that matters is that the West is persecuting Assange and Ecuador is not. If you were Assange, who would you choose?

Nothing about seeking asylum in a country can be reasonably construed as an endorsement of that country.

Second, why are Western governments "persecuting" Assange (ignoring for a moment that if ANY Western government wanted Assange out of the picture, he would have been dead long ago) to whatever extent they are? Could it be that in free and open societies governed by the rule of law we don't allow individuals to unilaterally decide, on their own, what secrets of their own governments should be released? Intelligence operations and diplomatic work demand secrecy even in free societies. We allow for that as a people.

Ah, so you admit that this is prosecution is politically motivated. Good. I'm glad we can agree on that much.

do you really believe Correa and Assange are some kind of kindred spirits?

No I don't. Do you believe that the US and Saudi Arabia are some kind of kindred spirits? By your argument, the US is as smeared by its association with Saudi Arabia as Assange is by association with Ecuador.

Does our alliance with Saudi Arabia "absolutely smear" the US? If not, how can you say the same about Assange?

The irony, I suppose — irony being a common thread here — is that all the leaked cables showed is that the US has a thoughtful and dedicated foreign service. Unless, of course, you're one of those people who hates the US and believes that they revealed some dark and sinister secrets by taking a handful of cables out-of-context out of hundreds of thousands and using them to invent some kind of imagined scandal.

Indeed the situation is ironic. The US, the UK, and Sweden have successfully reduced their credibility BELOW that of a nation with documented human rights abuses. That's pretty sad.

The UK said, effectively, "we can walk in and take him if we want." Whether or not the process of doing that could be characterized as "storming the embassy" depends entirely on how many weapons and jackbooted thugs are involved in that process. Using the phrase before said thugs have appeared certainly qualified as hyperbole. Since it's no longer possible to have a political discussion anywhere in the world without hyperbole, I discounted the phrase. The meaning of the UK government was clear and the phrase is relevant, even if its connotations are excessive.

You are welcome to your opinion. It is contrary to the opinion of the majority. This is not groupthink, and your use of the word is intentionally pejorative. "Consensus" is the word you are looking for. Your post deserves -1 because your opinions and posts range from intentionally obtuse to obviously false to blatantly anti-freedom. You are an autocrat who advocates secret indictments, secret trials, secret courts, and the rule of a state over all things and in all ways, with no possibility of error or adjustment. This makes you 1) Unamerican; 2) Dangerous to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; 3) Worthy of -1.

I can't speak to the UK or Sweden, but the US can no longer lay claim to being a democracy. Not even a representative democracy. SOPA/PIPA are the most explicit proof of that. The bills were proposed in Congress. The Congressional switchboard was jammed, for an entire day. The outpouring of negative feedback from the populace at large was probably the greatest it has been for any specific bill presented in the past decade. Six months later, provisions of those bills are now back in new bills before Congress, in direct and explicit contradiction to the will of the people. Nor can that will be characterized as the tyranny of the majority. The bills remove rights and freedoms from the majority in favor of a tiny monied minority. The bills are the very definition of the tyranny of the minority, and Congress is not in any way behaving in a democratic fashion. I leave aside the policies of torture, Guantanamo Bay, secret torture facilities run by the CIA in Eastern Europe, and assorted other atrocities and unamerican habits the US government indulges in.

There are reasons why such countries as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Russia are mentioned on an equal footing with the US. The US has declined. Severely. It's now publicly visible for the whole world to see just how far that decline has proceeded. And now that it has been demonstrated that the autocrats in power can and will proceed to take away further freedom, against the will of the people, and for the sole purpose of making money for a tiny minority, it's reasonable to say the Grand Experiment has failed. The shining beacon of freedom the US once was is so badly tarnished that an oppressive little once-and-future dictatorship can make the US look bad, and it has been explicitly demonstrated the system can not be corrected by peaceful protest.

If Sweden was willing to guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited afterwards to the US there never would have been an issue. However, they refused this guarantee, so the only option Assange has left is to take up an offer of asylum which was offered to him by the president of Ecuador during a TV interview.

The Ecuadorans, and Assange's lawyer, have offered the Swedish prosecutors the opportunity to interview Assange inside of the Ecuadoran embassy. The Swedish turned down the offer, despite the fact that they have used this method to interview possible criminals in other cases (a Serb murderer, IIRC).

Odd that, it's almost like they don't actually care about the 'rape' allegations and just want to get him to Sweden... which is what Assange has been worrying about the entire time.

I'm pretty sure you're not a shill. You have too long of a history on Slashdot defending government actions to qualify as one. Instead, you qualify as a basic autocrat: the power and sanctity of the state and the nation trumps all. Personally, I prefer to keep company with shills. At least, I can buy them off if I disagree with their positions.

It doesn't free him from the bias that he is exposed to by working for US military organisations. Not only that, but he is completely over-stating the human rights violations in Ecuador. Part of what he's referring to is two times that a TV station was shut down for broadcasting material which met the following criteria:

1) Was blatantly false2) Was likely to cause social unrest

One of these was the station claiming that there was a secret government HQ that was used to manipulate votes. The other was claiming that all fishing rights would be removed for a period of 9 months due to oil exploration, which caused riots in all of the fishing villages. Both claims were false.

Other stuff he's referring to makes it illegal to write partisan news articles, and a criminal libel case which is shutting down a newspaper and sending the editor and directors to jail for incorrectly claiming that the president ordered the army to open fire on a hospital during a protest by the police.

So the general gist of things that I'm getting here is that Ecuador don't mind it if you say stuff, but keep it true, and try not to let your personal opinions sway the facts in what you write.

Yeah, it would have been nice if he'd made his affiliations clear in his post and been a bit less inflammatory in the sections he chose to quote.

A shill implies they are posting something simply in exchange for money. I doubt very much that criticizing Ecuador and Assange on slashdot is part of his job; far more likely this is what he believes, and he picked a job that conforms with those beliefs.

If someone from wikileaks posted a defense of Assange here, neither you nor anyone else would accuse them of being a shill; they would be praised, modded up, thanked, etc..

1. It sounds like you're not familiar with what Navy Information Warfare Officers do. Hint: this community was previously called Cryptology Officers.

2. I'm not on anyone's clock. (To be clear: I am not being paid or given any consideration, by anyone, for posting on slashdot or anywhere else on the internet, nor have I ever.)

So yes, it's not only an ad hominem, it's a particularly ridiculous one. Most places welcome someone with background and experience who take the time to source their posts participating in a discussion. Can you point to anything inaccurate in my post?

Yet it will be ACs and people whose identities aren't known praising Assange and Ecuador who will receive the most positive attention here. Those with opposing views will be shouted down, or, in this case, be accused of being paid government shills.

I am located at the University of Wisconsinâ"Madison in Madison, Wisconsin. I work in the University's Division of Information Technology (DoIT) in Systems Engineering and Operations as a senior systems engineer. My work involves assessing services in enterprise IT environments at the University.

I am the Continuity of Operations (COOP) Architect, which is responsible for the technical efforts that drive business continuity, disaster recovery, and continuity of operations analysis and planning for critical IT infrastructure at the University of Wisconsinâ"Madison, a major state government agency.

I also serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare, and am currently in the graduate Space Systems program at the Naval Postgraduate School. For contact information, see the left sidebar.

technically not a shill, but he is a US operative that is unquestionable.

If some asshat in the Foreign Office hadn't tried to force the issue by invoking a law not designed for this sort of situation, perhaps a less pissed-off Ecuador would have made a different choice. I'm no fan of Assange, but the legal process in which he is enmeshed appears to be ever so slightly fishy, and invites reactions like the Ecuadorean one.

everyone is entitled to their opinion, but failing to disclose being an operative for one of the parties will certainly impact others' opinion of your trustworthiness when that connection comes to light. It's fairly common for people involved to comment around here, but it is customary to throw a little Disclaimer at the end or beginning of the post so it won't look like you were trying to hide something when someone makes the connection.

"... I also serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare...."http://das.doit.wisc.edu/ [wisc.edu]

If you think he isn't biased, and possibly being paid for his post, you are crazy.Now, please, get off my lawn!

"I laugh at the people who claim that the USA is a bad place to live, that the government is so corrupt and they are constantly controlling us. Leave then, take your arse somewhere else and then call me from there and let me know how things are going."

Panama is quite nice. So is Japan. Lived in both places for short periods of time.

Only reason I'm still in the USA is probation. Once that's done, I'm taking myself, and half of your agricultural economy (with tech I've developed,) with me.

Then we'll see how you enjoy living with China's boots on your throat and the throats of your children/grandchildren.

What scares me most is the willingness the world seems to have to allow first the violation of Assange's human rights, then to threaten the 10+ international treaties (acts of hostility against a friendly nation) that the world has in place to protect people from such a situation. In the end we are left looking to a third world country, with a somewhat poor record itself, for those rights that should be universal. Australia should be ashamed of itself that he has to resort to Ecuador and not his home nation.

"world seems to have to allow first the violation of Assange's human rights,"

Care to elaborate? Are you saying the UK justice system is a patsy for the UK government and every judge and juror was knobbled?

And what about the human rights or the women in sweden who may (or may not) have been raped. Assange may (or may not) have done it but this isn't the sort of thing decided in the court of public opinion my friend. THIS is why the law exists. If you dont' like that tough , but don't pretend Assange is makin

He stated that he would go to Stockholm to face his allegations, but only if they guaranteed that they would not extradite him to the US. The Swedish government confirmed that they couldn't promise that.

That is the human rights violation - it's effectively a one stop trip to Guantanamo for him without a rape trial.

Assange is being very reasonable, but only if International Treaties such as the Vienna Convention are adhered to.

The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.

Isn't that for the court in Sweden to decide? By the way, a British judge has already ruled that the allegations, if true, would constitute rape under English law. That is why the UK is trying to extradite him.

Oh, he exposed illicit facts, and behaviors of corrupt government agencies. THat's not a crime. That should be public knowledge.

If it is not a crime, why is Assange so nervous about the possibility of the US asking Sweden to extradite him? Sweden would just turn around and say "no, it's not a crime, go away USA".

It seems odd that the UK would put that much effort into hunting down a bail jumper. Particularly a bail jumper who isn't wanted on UK charges. And why is Sweden so adamant that he be returned, sending demands to the UK, if he's only wanted for a minor crime and is likely to not even be charged?

Assange seems to be a bit of a jerk, but there also seems to be something fishy going on. A lot of resources are being spent to get Assange into a position where he can be extradited to the US. And the US doesn't have a particularly good track record at the moment for fair trials, due process and human rights where foreigners they don't like are concerned.

No it isn't. No country should make deals with a criminal to get him to face justice.

If his suspected crime is rape he should expect to only be tried for rape.

What Sweden is attempting here isn't bringing a suspected criminal to justice, it's bringing a suspected criminal to a place where he will be abducted, tortured, and likely killed by a third party country that has no stake in the crime he is accused of.

Sleep deprivation, tied in a straight jacket, pumped full of drugs...naaah, that's not tortue. Waterboarding is torture, of course only third world banana republics do something like that, right? And why would Assange be afraid of just getting on a plane [amazon.com] right? surely that means he's up to something.
Welcome to the USSA, where the only free men are the rich men.

No it isn't. No country should make deals with a criminal to get him to face justice.

"Assange is being very reasonable,"

Funny how only a 3rd world dictatorship sees it that way.

Ah, an Edwin Meese Guantanamoid: "If the police arrest you, then you're (almost) certainly guilty". Said shortly before they investigated him. Right up there with "Innocent people have nothing to hide" when it comes to excusing abuse of authority.

It is quite possible that Assange is a total jerk, guilty of "rape", as defined by Sweden, which has a different definition than most countries do to begin with. Just because you're controversial doesn't make you a saint. However, back before Meese and his buddies were in business, America used to have this concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty". I realize Reagan took a match to this concept with his pre-employment drug testing and proof-of-citizenship requirements, and its been going downhill ever since, but at one time, at least, the USA - and officially, at least - most of its citizens would demand a fair trial before it hanged him.

One thing no one has mentioned. WikiLeaks revealed a lot of dirt on a lot of countries. What did they say about Ecuador?

Not that it matters. It really is true that politics makes strange bedfellows.

He's saving his own arse and the fact that he's willing to give live in a fleepit 3rd world country to get away from justice tells me all I need to know about how he sees his guilt.

The UK isn't trying to send Assange to Sweden to be tried for rape, the UK is trying to send Assange to Sweden so he can be sent on to the US for torture and/or a death sentence. The UK will not send this man to his death directly but they will send him via Sweden so they can pretend they didn't know what was going to happen.

He may or may not have commited rape and if he did he deserves to be locked up for it, but that's not what's going to happen in any case. If he ends up in Sweden he will be deported to

its not justice to willingly walk into the hands of thugs. thugs that you have a strong suspicion will do you harm and justify it by 'color of law'. but they are thugs, make no mistake, and he would be walking into virtual suicide.

I would not walk willingly to a known ambush. sorry that you think this would be 'justice'.

This is the root of the issue. The United States government wants him for exposing their dirty, corrupt secrets. They will try everything they can to get him while making it look like it was legally done by the book, all while making HIM look like a criminal to the easily manipulated public. Whatever charges they come up with in the meantime are incidental to the government's cause.

I wouldn't be surprised if the charges against him were completely politically motivated. I mean, how often is this law actually used against people? When was the last time someone was thrown in jail over failing to use a condom? Come on.

If anyone wants to question Assange, they know exactly where he is. Drop by and ask some questions, or give him a phone call. That they haven't done this is proof that they are not really interested in asking questions, but getting Assange into custody.

Over and over it has been said that Sweden wants to question him as they need to do this formally before charging him and that needs to take place in Sweden legally. So to drop by or phone is of no interest to Sweden and in any case, why should he be treated differently from every body else?

You question Ecuador's record on human rights. Well, how about the US and the UK and for that matter Sweden? The US routinely tortures civilians with no right to process or a legal representative. And that is just the most blatant example.

The UK has a very long history of violent repression and total disregard for human rights. The only reason it has improved is because its power to abuse has been greatly reduced.

Sweden has shown itself to be a puppet state in the last ten years.

Nobody claims Ecuador is a saint but in the fight against evil you sometimes have to make strange bed fellows.

And good job quoting a guy working for a rightwing think tank. This was funded by the people who made the atom bomb. I want their opinion on human rights?

Willfull slaves such as you quake in their boots at the idea of anyone daring to rebel. You do not believe in the system that represents the status quo, you just are desperately afraid of any change whatsoever. You rather continue to be raped up the ass then risk any change because it might cause just the tiniest upset and then all hell will break lose.

Wikileaks was the only response possible in a world where western governments from administration to adminstration have sought to keep ever more hidden from fact in the name of national security. That this was a complete and utter lie is simply proven to anyone who isn't a sniffeling coward like the parent poster, NOT A FUCKING THING HAPPENED after the wikileaks. All that happened is that it became clear how much we had been lied to and how many of the rumors were true. People lost faces but no bases were attacked, no wars were lost. Just the powerful ended up with eggs on their faces.

And that frighens little dave shroeder, Wikileaks upset his world view. He believed Bush was protecting little dave and not at in it for himself. Poor dave is upset. Wikileaks must be shutdown so dave can put his head under the blanket again.

While you are correct in citing the examples you did about Ecuador, many of those same organizations have slammed the UK and US for their abuses of power against journalists, protestors and dissidents. If you were an Ecuadoran citizen and read this [amnesty.org] about the United States or this [amnesty.org] about the UK you'd probably feel safer staying put.

Oh dear, Dave Schroeder the self-confessed "Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet." from his own homepage was just waiting to pounce on first post for this one.

Well, anyway, I actually listened to the statement by Ecuador's spokesman live today and it was pretty interesting. The reason Ecuador took so long over this decision is that they have been trying to avoid it. What this involved was trying to find out whether Assange really was under some kind of threat. As such they:

- Asked Britain to guarantee that there was no possibility of Assange being extradited to the US. Britain refused to give this guarantee.

- Asked Sweden to guarantee that Assange would not be further extradited to the US after the rape case was dealt with. Sweden refused to give this guarantee.

- Asked Sweden if they would be willing to interview Assange in the Ecuardorian embassy over the accusations, noting that contrary to much FUD posted on Slashdot, this is in fact something Sweden can do, and has done in the past hence debunking the argument that Sweden's legal system does not allow this.

- Asked the US whether there was any existing or planned legal proceedings ongoing against Assange, and any current or potential future plans to extradite him over Wikileaks. The US refused to respond to this.

Given these 3 points, Ecuador decided that on the balance of probabilities, Assange was indeed at risk because they could not get any kind of guarantee from any of the parties involved that this was nothing to do with Wikileaks. As such they granted him asylum.

Or if you cut away the bullshit, the responses, or lack of, from Britain, Sweden, and America when Ecuador tried to resolve this without having to give Assange asylum and hence now deal with the tricky situation of how to get him the hell out of the UK all but confirm that this whole thing is indeed about Wikileaks.

Still, keep on trying to just slag off Ecuador as a bit of misdirection from the actual story here Dave if that's what makes you a happy guy.

Well, firstly, for someone (Assange) who's all about freedom of press, exposing secrets, etcetera, it's pretty darned hypocritical of him to go to Ecuador. He should be exposing them. President Correa: [cnn.com]

Isacson and other experts point out that Correa loves disclosures when it suits him, but he has one of the worst reputations in Latin America for cracking down on journalists. Correa has filed defamation complaints against journalists who criticized him, forced independent radio and television stations to air lengthy rebuttals of critical reports, pre-empted programming and temporarily shut some stations down, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Of course, they had a great rapport on Assange's television program. You know, the one that is financed by the Kremlin - not exactly an entity known for stellar journalistic freedom [cpj.org].

I'm sure Ecuador had a great story prepared, but it's also probably just as convenient to recognize that this anti-US rhetoric w

"Why would the UK or Sweden "guarantee" that he won't be extradited? If the US has not requested it, and a court has not ruled, then no guarantee could be made."

The UK specifically because it was extraditing him for the claimed rape and has claimed Sweden couldn't then pass him on to a 3rd country without the UK's agreement. It was a bit more explicit than the way I simply worded it, such that the UK wouldn't give a guarantee that Sweden couldn't then just pass him on to the US, which is contrary to what UK officials have claimed in the past about the case.

In the case of Sweden, the guarantee sought was that Sweden wouldn't just pass him on to the US without a separate extradition agreement from the UK. Again, Sweden wouldn't do this, and again, despite the fact Swedish officials have claimed they would need to do this to pass him onto the UK.

Effectively all Ecuador was after is a solid guarantee that the standards of justice in protecting Assange from extradition to the US that both British and Swedish officials had claimed would protect Assange, really would protect him. Neither country was willing to put their money where their mouth is and actually back up their previous claims with a solid guarantee.

So it ties in with your last sentence basically, that it's not so much that both countries wouldn't give some arbitrary guarantee that Assange was safe from US extradition, but instead that both countries wouldn't give a guarantee that Assange would in fact be protected by the proper legal mechanisms both countries previously claimed would protect him. In other words, what was said by officials about protection for Assange from further extradition to the US was in fact likely just a facade.

The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status [guardian.co.uk] (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.

I don't see how the two are any different. If UK strips diplomatic status, you think Ecuador is going to give up the embassy all cheery-like instead of hole-up and wait it out (attention-whoring on the global political front)? Ecuador interpreted British English (and its tendency to understate things of importance) quite well.

People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy.

Look, we all think Assange is an ass, but free governments require watchdogs to remain free, and sometimes those watchdogs have to bray like asses.

I wonder what interpretation you give to the quoted text. Nobody said the word was there, but the threath is clear, the UK is willing to take action. Oh, so maybe they walk onto foreign soil with gun in hands instead of running. That makes all the difference.

Well actually no. It proves that we will break international extradition and asylum treaties on a political whim...

Assange said he'd willingly go to Sweden to face charges if they guaranteed it wasn't a ploy to extradite him to the US. They could not guarantee that which is why he's seeking asylum. He's not trying to escape the allegations.

You like charges of obstructing a police officer, obstructing justice, harbouring a criminal, aiding and abetting, etc. then?

Plus, the police are quite within their right to block access to the street "for public safety", to prevent the escape of someone facing arrest, etc. for any reasonable distance.

Assange is a dick who thinks he can find a loophole to let himself go free. Trouble is, each loophole he finds is smaller and smaller and ends up with him being arrested and deported, with more charges on top

You're correct, the letter spelt out, instead, the legal steps it may take that would allow it to go in and take Assange, rather than using the term "storm".

Also, while I'm pointing out that a fairly easy to deduce set of consequences is implied by the Foreign Office's letter and subsequent statements, I am in no way calling you a fastidious idiot. I am merely pointing out that the letter's and statements meaning is trivially easy to deduce, probably so for most people with an IQ over 50, and that your comment seems to be implying that the lack of a presence of a specific term means it doesn't actually mean what it actually means, and what people are saying it means.

Your accusations that those assumptions are an insult to anybody who has read up on the matter are incorrect, because I have, and I am not insulted.

The original person who laid the charges has now dropped them and will not co-operate with the prosecution. She laid the charges in the first place after discovering that Assange was sleeping with another woman. She had previously written a lengthy blog on "How to get back at your ex-boyfriend". Interpol placed Assange as #2 most wanted IN THE WORLD for these accusations.

Your implications that you know anything on the matter offend those who do.